difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se
Wed Aug 26 11:55:04 EDT 2015


Oh, that got sent too early, sorry. I meant to say:

Feel free to add some of these descriptions to the stack overflow question:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve

Two people thought the question was bad enough to down-vote it, but I think
this discussion shows it to be useful, so maybe that can change.

//Erik

onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se>:

> By the way feel free to add some of the
>
> onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erik.sundvall at liu.se');>>:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Where can one find proposals/diagrams describing the refreshed RM
>> (reference model) in the new 13606 revision? Will 13606 keep using the
>> old data types or harmonize more with CIMI or OpenEHR?
>>
>> Is there now consensus/majority regarding using ADL/AOM 2.0 for 13606? If
>> so, great!
>>
>> When it comes to "simplifying" the RM (or perhaps moving complexity to
>> another meta/design-pattern layer) I think CIMI has gone further than
>> 13606. Are there any plans of aligning 13606 with CIMI?
>>
>> //Erik Sundvall
>>
>> onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Kalra, Dipak <d.kalra at ucl.ac.uk>:
>>
>>> Dear Ian,
>>>
>>> Thanks also for your helpful reflections. I agree that once the standard
>>> is close to final we should perform and publish a detailed comparison and
>>> cross mapping between the reference models, as an aid to system
>>> implementers and tool makers.
>>>
>>> With best wishes,
>>>
>>> Dipak Kalra
>>>
>>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 17:20, Ian McNicoll <ian at freshehr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Dipak,
>>>
>>> A very clear and helpful statement of current and future intent. I too
>>> agree that we should not focus negatively on the differences and that they
>>> are mutually reinforcing but people do ask and it's important that we are
>>> clear that while 13606 and openEHR share a number of tools, technologies,
>>> philosophies and even people + good relationships), they are not currently
>>> interchangeable or directly interoperable.
>>>
>>> From a high-level perspective they are indeed very similar but the
>>> detailed differences do matter to implementers, and I think we need to be
>>> clear to the market about these differences.
>>>
>>> Thanks too for the perspective on AQL adoption - makes complete sense to
>>> me in the 13606 context.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>>> email: ian at freshehr.com
>>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>>
>>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnicoll at openehr.org
>>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>>
>>> On 26 August 2015 at 15:33, Kalra, Dipak <d.kalra at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to stress the
>>>> complementarity of the two.
>>>>
>>>> openEHR is, as others have said, an important consolidator of the
>>>> state-of-the-art in best practices for the design of an electronic health
>>>> record architecture, repositories and the underpinning of EHR systems. An
>>>> important advantage is that it specifications are publicly accessible, and
>>>> of course it has a vibrant community and a large number of tools to support
>>>> its use.
>>>>
>>>> 13606 has always had a good relationship with openEHR, but is primarily
>>>> intended to be an interface standard between heterogeneous EHR systems, and
>>>> is therefore optimised for that purpose (e.g. for mappings), which means
>>>> its reference model is definitely simpler. There are many countries and
>>>> situations where it is essential to have a formal international standard in
>>>> order for it to be acceptable as part of a national strategy. Some vendors
>>>> have also indicated that they like the inevitable stability of a standard,
>>>> which changes infrequently. 13606 also has a community and tools, and of
>>>> course many of its community are also part of openEHR, and vice versa.
>>>>
>>>> If one takes a high-level look at the many different globally-used
>>>> representations of health data, it is easy to see that these two reference
>>>> models are indeed very similar. Whilst near to the ground we can easily be
>>>> tempted to focus on their minor differences, I believe it is of greater
>>>> value to society and to our field if we can regard them - and champion them
>>>> - as a mutually reinforcing pair of models.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision
>>>> we expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the
>>>> standard will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting
>>>> archetype interchange.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out, AQL could in theory have been added to the
>>>> standard, since it could “work" with 13606. However, another important
>>>> imperative for a standard is that it has reached a sufficient level of
>>>> maturity and stability. It was also felt important by the working groups of
>>>> CEN and ISO that we do not introduce something very novel into this
>>>> revision process. I did suggest that we consider adding a sixth part to the
>>>> standard to support the distributed analysis of electronic health records
>>>> (such as communicating queries). It was felt wiser, and I support this
>>>> view, not to introduce something new to these five parts of the standard,
>>>> but once it has finished its revision to propose a new work item to CEN and
>>>> ISO on the querying of EHRs. AQL will inevitably be an important
>>>> contribution to that new work item, and hopefully by the time we are ready
>>>> for it the AQL specification will be very mature and there will be much
>>>> more experience of its use, making it an ideal specification to standardise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you all for your excellent contributions in different areas of
>>>> EHR representation, communication and implementation - to keep advancing
>>>> our field and the quality of EHRs world wide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Dipak
>>>> ________________________________________________________
>>>> Dipak Kalra
>>>> Clinical Professor of Health Informatics
>>>> Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education
>>>> University College London
>>>>
>>>> President, The EuroRec Institute
>>>> Honorary Consultant, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London
>>>>
>>>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 14:44, Ian McNicoll <ian at freshehr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bert,
>>>>
>>>> "I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and
>>>> every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."
>>>>
>>>> That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences
>>>> between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal
>>>> adoption of AQL is one of those  differences.
>>>>
>>>> AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not the
>>>> case for 13606. Of course that does not stop 13606 vendors implementing AQL
>>>> but in terms of actual differences between the 2 communities the adoption,
>>>> or intention to adopt AQL seems (from the outside) somewhat different both
>>>> at a practical and formal level.
>>>>
>>>> Although AQL adoption in the openEHR community is far from universal,
>>>> most of the vendors/developers that I have spoken to see it as something
>>>> they want to implement, particularly as GDL is somewhat dependent on AQL.
>>>>
>>>> I am just trying to ascertain if there is similar enthusiasm/intention
>>>> amongst 13606 vendors, or if AQL forms part of the current 13606 refresh
>>>> discussions.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>>>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>>>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>>>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>>>> email: ian at freshehr.com
>>>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>>>
>>>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnicoll at openehr.org
>>>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>>>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>>>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>>>
>>>> On 26 August 2015 at 13:28, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> but am not aware of any non-openEHR
>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and
>>>>> every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>>>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from mobile.
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent from mobile.
>


-- 
Sent from mobile.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150826/0ad7b0e7/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list